Tristan Gingold wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>>> DWARF in general is not so narrowly specified that this kind of issue falls
>> into a "clearly valid" or "clearly invalid" category. I think it is
>> adequately unambiguous what that construct means, and that is usually good
>> enough in the DWARF world.
>> Great, but these kinds of ambiguous meanings lead to incompatible tools.
> (and in this particular case, this is easily fixable. Maybe I can propose
> a change ?)
Please submit any proposed changes at http://dwarfstd.org/Comment.php.
--
Michael Eager eager at eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077